Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/29/2014

Smt. Tulasi Suna, W/O- Dinesh Suna, Laikera, Jharsuguda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Jharsuguda Branch, Jharsuguda - Opp.Party(s)

B.B.Barai

10 Dec 2014

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

                                        

                           CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  CASE NO. 29 OF 2014

 

Tulasi Suna ( 39 Yrs.),

W/O: Dinesh Suna,,

R/O: Kaharapada,PO: Arda,,

PS- Laikera, Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha………………………. Complainant.

 

Dinabandhu Besan,

S/O: Late Dahalu Besan,

Rukumani Besan,

W/O: Late Dahalu Besan,

Both are At-Marakuta,

PS/Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha…………………………………Complainant(Intervener)

     

                                           Versus 

 

Branch Manager,

Indian Overseas Bank,Jharsuguda Branch( 1461),

Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha…………....................................................... Opp. Party.

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                           Shri B.B.Barai, Adv. & Associates.

For the Intervener                               Shri R.K.Dash, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party                              Shri B.K. Agrawal, Adv. & Associates.

 

Date of Order: 10.12.2014

 

Present       

                                                                                                                                      1. Shri S.L. Behera, President.

                                                                                                                                      2. Shri S.K. Ojha, Sr. Member.

                                                                                                                                      3. Smt.A. Nanda, Member(W).

 

                                                                                

Smt.A.Nanda, Member :- The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of O.P.

 

            In brief the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the natural daughter and legal heir of her deceased father namely Dahalu Besan, son of late Bideshi Besan .  The said Dahalu Besan had deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- only in the Bank of O.P i.e. Indian Overseas Bank,Jharsuguda branch on dtd. 16.11.2006 in the form of fixed deposit for a period of 39 months with stipulation for credit of quarterly interest to the S.B.I Account No. 1752 during the said time the nominee Sri  Dinabandhu Besan  had been registered in the Book of the Bank, which was matured on dtd. 16.02.2010.  And subsequently the said depositor Dahalu Besan had renewed the said SFD(Q) of Rs.2,00,000/- only for a period of 36 month w.e.f  02.07.2010 at this time the nomination was made infavour of his daughter Tulasi Suna w/o- Dinesh Suna vide copy of Account Opening Form.  The said Dahalu Besan was died on 07.06.2012 and the present complainant is the nomine of the said SFD(Q) 411000004.  The complainant approached the O.P for releasing of the aforesaid amount kept with the O.P in the name of her father late Dahalu Besan on dtd. 10.06.2012 and submitted required documents/ papers to the O.P and lastly the O.P refused to release the amount, the reasons best known to the O.P.  Being aggrieved with the attitude of the O.P,  the complainant filed this case with a prayer for a direction to the O.P to release the aforesaid amount with interest along with Rs.10,000/- towards compensation.

 

            Being notice the O.P appeared through his advocate, filed written version along with relevant documents. That on dtd. 02.09.2014 after hearing from both the side in length hearing was closed and fixed for written argument if any on dtd. 17.09.2014. That on dtd. 08.09.2014 one Dinabandhu Besan and one Rukmini Besan son of and wife of late Dahalu Besan are filed a petition through their advocate Sri R.K.Dash for making them parties in this case being the legal heirs of late Dahalu Besan. The said intervener filed Xerox copy of SFD No 2/2006 in the name of Dahalu Besan , acknowledgement of accounts SFD -2/2006 in the name of Dahalu Besan nominee Dinabandhu Besan and request letter for release the SFD amount to established their claim. 

 

            Before going to the merits of the case it is essential to decide the maintainability of the petition filed by the intervener on dtd. 08.09.2014 for making them as parties.  The complainant has also orally objected to this petition and pray for rejection of the petition.

 

            During the course of hearing the learned advocate for the complainant submitted the dispute is in between the complainant and the O.P.  It is the liberty of the complainant she will decide who are the necessary parties to this case.  If anybody wants to get relief through court then it is their duty to file a case against where they sought relief.  Intervener has no any loco-standing to file a petition for making as party.  Further the learned advocate submitted that Consumer Forum is not sitting in the capacity of Civil Court as such this court has no any jurisdiction to decide right, title and interest of the parties.  This Forum has no power to decide the quantum of shares between all the legal heirs of late Dahalu Besan.

 

            The learned advocate for the intervener submitted that all the intervener are legal heir of late Dahelu Besan and being the nominee and legal heirs they are entitled the shared out of SFD kept with the O.P. Further he has submitted the nominee is not entitled for entire sum in supported of his submission he has relied on decision reported in 1983 STPL(LE)11 509 SC and 2002 (1) OLR-200.

 

            Heard, both the advocates in length, the learned advocates for intervener, relied on the aforesaid judgments and submitted the relevant provision of section 39 of insurance Act.  But the case in hand is a matter cover under the Banking Regulation Act,1949.  Hence we find no strength in the submission of learned advocate for the intervener and we are not inclined to agreed with the submission. On the other hand we find merit in the submission of learned advocate to the complainant.  In brief this forum has not vested with the power to decide the right, title and interest of the parties.  And also the hands of this forum are tight to

 

extend for deciding the quantum of share of all the legal heirs of late Dehalu Besan, hence the petition filed by the intervener for making them as parties is hereby rejected.

 

            After going through the complaint petition, written version and available documents on record it is found that there are only issues which are to be determined by this Forum are;-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to receive all the amount of fixed deposit alone, being the nominee ?

 

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P or not ?

 

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation costs, if so what extent ?

 

Heard from both the sides.  The learned advocate for the complainant submitted that this dispute is cover under the Banking Regulation Act,1949 and the provision’s of the said Act is applicable to this case.  As per the provisions of this Act a nominee is entitle to get all the benefits of the said fixed deposits.  The both authority cannot deny to release the fixed deposit in form of the complainant in the event of death of the nominees the legal heirs are entitled as per the provision of succession Act.  During the life time of the nominee, the bank authority cannot release any amount of the deceased in favour of legal heirs.  Further the learned advocate agreed for the sake of argument, that even of this forum recognized the right, titled, interest of the intervener, but it cannot shared the fixed deposit among all the legal heirs on this power has not been vested to this forum.  The intervener have wrongly knocked the door of this forum rather they should have to Civil Court for determining the quantum of share of legal heirs.

 

      In view of the aforesaid discussion, we come to the conclusion that, this forum has no any power to decide the quantum of shared in respect of the aforesaid fixed deposit among the legal heir.  It is also a settled principle of law that during the life time of the nominee, bank authority cannot release the fixed deposit among all the legal heirs by allocating their respective shares.  Nominee is the only person to become the custodian of the fixed deposit.  If the intervener wants to be shareholder in aforesaid fixed deposits they have every right to take the shelter of Civil Court, even after releasing the amounts by the nominee, hence we hold that the nominee is entitled to receive the amount of the fixed deposits so far as issue No. 2 and 3 are concerned we answered these simultaneously.  The O.P has pleaded that there are more heir’s of late Dehalu Besan and all are claiming their right over the aforesaid fixed deposit and requesting the Bank authority for the same in their favour.  As there are more claimants and making quarrel among each other for withdrawal of said F.D, they are unable to release the said F.D in favour of the complainant alone even though the complainant is the nominee.

 

      The statutory provision of Banking Regulation Act,1949 “Section-45ZA (1) prescribed that whereas deposit is held by a Banking Company to the credit of one or more person, the depositor or as the case may be , all the depositors together, may nominate, in the prescribed manner, one person to whom in the event of death of the sole depositor or the death of all the depositors, the amount of deposit may be returned by the Banking Company. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained any other law for time being inforce or in any deposition, whether temporary or otherwise, in respect of such deposit, where a nomination made in the prescribed manner purports to confer on any person the right to  receive the amount of deposit from the Banking Company, the nominee shall , on the death of the sole depositor or as the case may be , on the death of all depositors, become entitled to all the rights of the sole depositor or as the case may be, of the depositors, in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons unless the nomination is varied or cancelled in the prescribed manner.”

 

      We are of the opinion that the O.P. did not obey the statutory  provision of Banking Regulation Act,1949 i.e 45ZA (1) and 2 by not releasing the amount of fixed deposit in favour of the complainant even after submitting the relevant documents by the complainant hence they have committed deficiency of service.

 

      In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allowed the complaint petition and the order dtd. 08.09.2014 is hereby vacate and hence the order as follow:-

 

ORDER

 

 

      We direct the O.P to release the amount of aforesaid F.D  vide No. SFD(Q) 411000004  along with interest as per the Bank kept with them in favour of the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, there shall be no order as to costs.

 

Accordingly the case is disposed of.

 

Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 10^th   day of December 2014, copy of this order shall be communicated to the parties as per Rule.

 

                                                                                                            I Agree.                                I Agree. 

                                                                                                           

                                                                   Sd/-S. K. Ojha, Member          Sd/- S.L.Behera, President            Sd/- A.Nanda, Member                  

 

                                                                                   Dictated and corrected by me.

 

                                                                                                                       Sd/-A.Nanda, Member (W)